glibc might not be build to avoid breakage #41

New Issue

Closed

opened 2021-08-25 15:26:06 +02:00 by Gontier-Julien · 2 comments

Gontier-Julien commented

2021-08-25 15:26:06 +02:00

Since glibc is part of pacman dependencie, we might not build it to avoir possible breackage of pacman

anonfunc commented

2021-08-25 20:29:50 +02:00

Owner

That is why it's somewhat useless to have pacman on the blacklist: we would need to exclude all dependencies to make it fully excluded and avoid breakage.

But to be honest I want to have a x86-64-v3 glibc, since its so commonly used.

Maybe it would be better to write a FAQ about how to install/download pacman-static from Eli than to have pacman blacklisted, but I'm not sure yet.

That is why it's somewhat useless to have pacman on the blacklist: we would need to exclude all dependencies to make it fully excluded and avoid breakage. But to be honest I want to have a x86-64-v3 `glibc`, since its so commonly used. Maybe it would be better to write a FAQ about how to install/download `pacman-static` from Eli than to have pacman blacklisted, but I'm not sure yet.

anonfunc added the

question

label 2021-08-25 20:31:49 +02:00

anonfunc referenced this issue

2021-09-07 13:07:30 +02:00

Blacklisted packages #16

anonfunc commented

2021-09-07 13:09:32 +02:00

Owner

I decided to remove pacman from the blacklist. ALHP seems pretty stable since introducing dependency resolving before building, so I feel confident enough so build pacman. Besides, like above mentioned, it is pointless without excluding glibc as well.

I decided to remove `pacman` from the blacklist. ALHP seems pretty stable since introducing dependency resolving before building, so I feel confident enough so build pacman. Besides, like above mentioned, it is pointless without excluding glibc as well.

🚀 3

anonfunc closed this issue

2021-09-07 13:09:32 +02:00